That's rubbish, at the SNP conference the inference was, if NATO insisted on the UK deterant staying where it is then it would be a deal breaker for membership.

In any case, NATO doesn't work like that, the notion that a quasi-military/political organisation like NATO can dictate what a sovereign country can and cannot have in its territory is as KBW said: bollocks.

I can see a deal being struck that would allow RUK keep its missiles in our country until they had a suitable place to put them, for a financial consideration.

I do admit that a future labour government in Scotland might want to be a nuclear power, but without the interference of Miliband and the right wing of the English Labour party, I reckon the grass root here would suddenly matter again to the leadership, and that Lamont would return to her previous belief that food and medicine for the poor was more important than being in the top people's club.

I reckon the core Labour vote in Scotland would rather the poor be fed than that they have the wherewithal to kill billions.

Pa. I agree. The deal said that if NATO said that they would have to remain; that they couldn't do without America's bombs (for they are America's bombs, and are included in their count, despite the fact that we pay for them) being placed in Scotland... then Scotland would simply say no to NATO.

That's the way I understood the discussion and decision.

Of course you can never guarantee what other parties would want.

But I don't think that NATO would get in a state. There will still be nuclear weapons stored in France, and if NATO is all that powerful then I'm sure they could force another country to take them: Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Poland...

It might, Monty, be written into the constitution, in which case we wouldn't need anything except a +vote in 2014.

Scotland couldn't afford their weapons. I know we will be rich, but £100 billion every 10 years is too much for even the 6th richest country in the world.

England can't afford it, but the likes of Cameron will do ANYTHING to keep his status at the right hand of Go... sorry, the American president. Even Lamont isn't gullible enough to think that she could be a world player.

We don't need NATO to agree to anything. The deal was that either we were rid of the weapons or we were rid of NATO and the weapons.

There's no deal tris. Pa said we had 'an inference' at the last conference. Inferences aren't legal and binding. To build new docking facilities for Trident would require billions and a natural deep water port with shelter.Like I said they will stay there until their useful life is up. Allowing new facilities to be built somewhere else in the meantime.

I used the word inference, not the SNP at their conference. I used it because that is what I took from their decision. They (the SNP) have promised to get rid of trident, if NATO dig their heals in and tell us we need to keep it where it is, then we don't join NATO.

I'm not a member of the SNP, I just watch the news and read a lot.

In any case, this entire argument just detracts from the actual post, which was about MOD double standards in terms of how they regard the worth of people in Scotland (or how they regarded it historically.)

I've read the NATO treaty and there isn't anything in there to back up what you're saying. At least, not by my interpretation.

Pa..didn't mean to fog the main topic of the post so won't comment any further. Just a slight correction first though. You said..

" if NATO dig their heals in and tell us we need to keep it where it is, then we don't join NATO."

This is looking down the wrong end of the telescope.We're staying in Nato (after the conference vote) so it's not a case of refusing to join something.Oh and don't watch the news. It's 99% propaganda and lies. That's why people believe in global warming and windmills.

One minute you snp drones whingeOn and on and on how nuclearWeapons are unnecessary .due toThe UK having no enemies wishing To nuke us. Yet here you are disassemblingA load of nonsense over nuclearArmageddon for Scotland

You'll get a mention in dispatchesFrom ALex for propaganda forThe snp above the call of duty .

Anyway more sensible topic What about David milibandSaying he accepts the: Tory Envelope : on there cuts

Er why? That's not leadershipIt's more followership.He would have different Prorities. That's a bit like sayingHe would torture as nicely.What's the feck wrong withThese New labour who keepTrying to give us Tory lite.

It's over people don't wantIt now is the time forFair decent policies .

Yes, we also tend to regard stories published in the Scotsman or Herald with a pinch of salt.

Monty.

We're not staying in NATO because we'll no longer be in it come independence.

The choice will be there, SNP have made it quite clear, the non-nuclear stance takes precendence over the pro-NATO one, from a purely (cynical) political POV, the SNP aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot by not getting rid of trident, or at the very least, making those kind of noises.

I watch the news but believe very little of it, global warming is an example, the two stories above from 'braveheart' are another.

Now, as Pa says, the point of the post was that 11,000 Plymouth citizens are too important to risk, but 1.5 million Glaswegians can go sod off and die in the interested of fat boy Cameron be allowed to play at being important.

What so far has given you the impression that we wouldn't get fairness from them?

Don't you like the fact that they build council houses?Don't you like the fact that they stopped their sale?Don't you like the insistence that the NHS stays a public service?Don't you like that schools are kept in public ownership?Don't you like that they will step in where they can to help the poorest against the killing cuts of the murdering Tories, who sat and laughed as labour put up some sort of fight (I thought, for the first time, that Byrne (the bit I saw) wasn't too bad)?

David Miliband is a Tony (that is a Blairite Tory). If he had won the leadership, I reckon the two parties would have merged at the general election and left the Liberals as the opposition, and Dave Miliband would be deputy prime monster.

I feel for you Niko. I really do. It must be like it would be for me if the SNP said that actually wanted to stay in the UK!

Well, these are scare stories which have already been debunked (actually, if memory serves, by the MoD saying the figures are all wrong). However the unionist press never lets inaccuracy get in the way of some nasty propaganda for the independence lobby.

But there you go. If you want to create LOADS of jobs why don't we just get more and more and more weapons and start killing more and more people all over the world. Tony Blair's and David Cameron's idea of heaven I've no doubt, to look big and strong and Churchillian.

How many did we kill in Iraq... how many little boys with no arms, or legs? How many people maimed beyond recognition?

How many of our servicemen maimed... Oh sorry, you won't know that because it is top secret.

If what you want is a country that has an extra few thousand jobs, because it has the wherewithal to kill everyone in China, Braveheart, then fine. Don't ask me to want to live in it.

I've no wish to make sure that the West has control of the oil by killing Muslims at any opportunity.

Had a busy day comical, all these posts on the Herald website, you must be panicking.

19000 imaginary jobs lost at Faslane according to the Herald reporting Davidsons committee. Davidson on radio at lunchtime 21000 jobs at risk, you would think he was just making it up as he goes along, oh thats right he is just making it up as he goes along. After all a freedom of information request for CND (remember them Alex? when Brown and Blair were members) said 525 jobs at Faslane dependant on Trident.

Monty ten minutes after independence a tug can throw a tow rope to the subs, they can be towed anywhere England wishes to park them. The river Thames near Westminster bridge would be ideal location.

Thought that you might be interested in Alistair Darlings three reasons why we are better together. He was at the British Legion in Inverness.

"Inside, Mr Darling, who is chair of Better Together and the first high-profile politician to visit the North on the campaign trail in advance of the 2014 independence referendum, argued there are three reasons to stay in the Union.

He said: “One is economic, firms can sell goods and services into a larger single market, the second is we have influence in the world, for example the Eurpoean Union, the big countries call the shots, and the third is the powerful emotional argument, we are Scottish, and we are proud to be English, we don’t have to choose.”

Yes thats right according to him we are Scottish and we are proud to be English. What a great reason to be bitter together.

Yes Dubs. Figures were made up. It was 9000 I think when Lamontable had a go about them.

Take a figure, any figure, multiply it by what ever you feel like and add on a few thousands for spite and then report it in your unionist rag to see if you can't boost the reader figures a little.

I expect one day to read that 4.5 million jobs are dependent on the WMDs.

Load of rubbish. As I said, even the Ministry of War spluttered in laughter at the figures that Labour has been spouting. We all know they couldn't count (hence the catastrophic debt) but to manage 19,000, then later 21,000 [perhaps they have all been irradiated and are breeding like rabbits]... dear or dear.

Bloody hell, Dubs...we are Scottish and proud to be English!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????

OOOOOOOOPS....

As far as I can see the single market is safe as long as both England (and whoever stays with them) and Scotland stay in the EEA. In any case, if Scotland does it has the whole of Europe to trade with whatever England does.

As for influence in the world, well, I don't think the UK has much in the EU. Mostly other countries would be happy with the moaning harpies would sod off. In the UN the UK only has influence because 90 odd per cent of the time it backs America. And even when natural British feelings would be to vote for something that America votes against, the UK either votes against or (as recently over Palestine) abstains. The UK is a broken old has been that still plays it big: a fur coat and no knickers, which, to be able to afford its big boy toys has to starve its poor to death and make do with antiquated infrastructure. and the 'embassies in almost every country in the world' rubbish is just an example of that. I'd rather they closed half of them and fixed the potholes.

Clearly, of course, Darling Alistair is right about the last bit... we are all proud as punch to be English... Who would ever doubt it?

He said: “One is economic, firms can sell goods and services into a larger single market, the second is we have influence in the world, for example the European Union, the big countries call the shots, and the third is the powerful emotional argument, we are Scottish, and we are proud to be English, we don’t have to choose.”

Yep Dubs. He may regret saying that the bigger nations have the clout, although to a certain extent it is true... but the UK has very little clout, basically because it isn't at the heart of Europe, and mostly people hate them. (Michael Portillo owned up to that recently.)

Than goodness I will still be able to play Petula Clark cds; they won't change the readers will they?

He should know that although he was a dead loss at every ministerial job he had, culminating in making a complete mess of the financial crisis, he will still; get a K and go to the house of dreary numpties. He surely must know that at a certain level the UK rewards failure.

Imagine these people at Jessops... the scroungers.

I've got two perfect words that fit these stars...

Anyway, I'm off to bed to relish being proud to be English... Night...:)

You say that Darling 'will still get a K and go to the house of dreary numpties'.

But what if Scotland votes 'Yes' first?

I do not think any more Scots will get peerages from the EWNI Prime Minister after independence, and quite possibly existing Scottish peers will be kicked out of the Lords expenses trough even if they are allowed to keep their silly titles. Perhaps that is one reason why Darling and some others wants to save the union.

Yes. That's what I meant. The whole campaign, for folk like Darling, is about the fact that if we leave their union, he won't enjoy the retirement home he has been counting on for all these years... at £300+ a day!

Actually, even if he gets the titles before we leave he won't be able to sit in the Lords.

Tat explains the vitriol that the likes of ffoulkes and Mental Mick Forsyth pour on independence.

it's about their comfortable club in London, and these nice red benches, so comfortable to sleep of a couple of bottles of good tax-payer subsidised claret ...